It’s deja vu all over again

With a bill passed that will arm rebels in Syria and bombs beginning to drop in Iraq, it feels like the early 2000’s in the Middle East all over again, except this time, it’s a group called ISIS in the crosshairs. If the US doesn’t rethink its approach to this part of the world, this “war” is all we’ll ever know.

The late Hunter S. Thompson was better known for his illegal-substance-fueled Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas than views on foreign affairs, but shortly after four commercial airliners flights’ ended in terror in New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington DC, Thompson took to his ESPN column “Hey Rube” on Sept. 11, 2001, and said this:

“The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now—with somebody—and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.”

Thirteen years later, the words are perhaps more chilling. There is a generation now who, in their teens, haven’t lived in an America not at war. President Barack Obama has made attempts, with little success, to distance the nation from the turmoil in the Middle East, but to what end? This isn’t the kind of conflict from history books, with a beginning, middle and end, but one that continually evolves.

Unlike the Sept. 11 attacks, the catalyst of the most recent turmoil in the Middle East has been, at least on the surface, ISIS’ widely disseminated beheading of American journalist James Foley.

This isn’t to say our nation is at war over the murder of one American man and a family tortured by the public nature of his death, but it certainly provided a spark.

The bigger picture, though, is the message sent from the startlingly well-funded extremist group. ISIS had been making news prior—in late June, it claimed to be a “state” of all Muslims in the world as it spread with force into Iraq—and the Foley killing and those to follow were used to illustrate its stance. (It’s worth noting that many Muslim groups and religious leaders have denounced ISIS, claiming its radical actions to be “un-Islamic.”)

On Sept. 9, Steven Sotloff, another American journalist to fall victim to ISIS, was killed. In the video posted by the state-slash-terrorist group, a masked individual addressed Obama with this message:

“Just as your missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people.”

A week later, the president spoke up, giving some idea of how the US would “destroy” ISIS. His vow to fight ISIS has come in the form of Congress giving bipartisan approval to arm and train Syrian rebels in their fight against Islamic terrorists, a $500 million measure.

Congressman Bill Owens was one of 273 to vote yes for the measure to arm the fighters, citing “imminent threat of violence.”

Those very words echo the drafting of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has given our last two presidents carte blanche to use force, across borders, against not only those suspected of playing roles in the Sept. 11 attacks, but “to prevent an act of international terrorism against the United States...”

The AUMF was directed toward al-Qaeda (and any suspected associates), a group that disassociated itself from ISIS earlier this year, technically distancing ISIS from the bills’ scope. However, a second drafting in 2002 pertained to Iraq, resulting in a gray area of whether it can be used in this conflict.

Though Obama took the bill through Congress, he said in a Sept. 10 speech that he has “the authority to address the threat from ISIS,” implying that he’d use the AUMF to justify continued air strikes or other military action beyond the funding of Syrian rebels.

Obama, prior ISIS’ emergence, has been a vocal opponent of the AUMF and has said he wanted it repealed.

On top of that, there’s been the added issue of whether arming the Syrian rebels is itself an unconstitutional act.

While ISIS may be growing dangerous enough to warrant concern, the government’s ways about policing the Middle East should be raising a number of red flags.

The War on Terror has become an expensive and deadly cycle. For every attack or perceived threat, America has played judge and jury, and every time it does, it gives religious extremists—the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS or whoever is next in line—reason to threaten and attack.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said after the bill was passed that “America should only go to war to win. We shouldn’t go to war sort-of-meandering our way through a spending bill.”

If only this war was a winnable one. Even if America was able to scrub ISIS from the map, the collateral damage would give rise to another group seeking retribution. The political and military strategies at play now will keep the US firmly entrenched in the region for years to come.

Thompson, foreseeing a “religious war,” had this to add in his column over a decade ago:

“We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possible all three at once. Who knows? … This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed—for anyone...”

Add ISIS to that list and it could have been written today. No wonder the sense of deja vu.

Perhaps, one day, a generation of Americans will know peace, but it doesn’t appear the path to that end is one the government is treading today.